4 ms·

One question I had in college was if learning inhibits our ability to learn new things. We can gain knowledge but is that the same as learning? I'm not sure whe

One question I had in college was if learning inhibits our ability to learn new things. We can gain knowledge but is that the same as learning? I'm not sure where the line sits between questioning and obstinance. Looking back at Theranos, lots of "experts" (at Stanford, etc.) told her her idea was impossible given the small amount of blood but she convinced people she found a way. It was all a fraud but is there a way to do blood testing at that scale? Do we just need people to keep failing and see if anyone ever gets there? Should academia stick to things that aren't known to be "impossible"? I don't have any answers but find it interesting to contemplate.

andrewflnr 2y ago
Picking Theranos as an example in favor of ignoring conventional wisdom is really a bold choice. I know there are better examples, based on actual results instead of wishful thinking.
- fragmede 2y ago
  Avoiding more recent (aka controversial) examples, the best search engines of the early Internet required users to trawl through pages and pages of search results, with the useful answers on page 8 or so. Conventional wisdom was this was as good as it was gonna get, and that's just how search is. That was, of course, until Google came around and totally changed the game.
plorkyeran 2y ago
Your example of a time where ignoring the "experts" was a good thing was a time when the experts were correct?
- 9rx 2y ago
  Do you have a better example to set the context up to ask whether blood testing at that scale could ever become possible if enough people kept trying to crack that nut, contrary to the general consensus of infeasibility?
  - andrewflnr 2y ago
    Why would you insist on framing a general discussion of the wisdom of defying conventional wisdom in terms of blood tests? Blood tests only come up in this context because of the one time someone lied about them.
    - 9rx 2y ago
      You wouldn't. It has little to do with the general discussion. It was quite clearly posted as an aside. It came up because the previous commenter was on a train of thought where the general topic lead him to think about Theranos, which lead him to think about blood testing in general and thus questions about that arose. That is how discussions occur. If that slide into a new topic doesn't interest you, you don't need to reply.
      - andrewflnr 2y ago
        Speaking of "don't need to reply", there are many times when I start writing a comment, realize that in fact it's wholly off topic, and delete it. Not every "train of thought" needs to be aired out.
        9rx 2y ago
        No train of thought ever needs to be aired out. But at the same time, if you don't see that your questions are asked, how are you to ever know? Surely we are not anti-education types around here? You are right that if you find yourself staring to make off-topic statements, like some of the earlier comments with their authors wanting to arbitrarily assert that they don't know how to read, it is time to go outside instead.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    Why would you need a better example? It's a very, very stupid question; asking it is not worthwhile. This is the problem the experts pointed out: If your sample is so small that a substance you're looking for isn't present at all, you will fail to detect that substance, even if it was present in the pool you drew your sample from. Theranos claimed the reverse, that they could detect a substance whether it was present or not. How much thought do you want to devote to the question of whether a different approach might realize that dream?

andrewflnr 2y ago

Picking Theranos as an example in favor of ignoring conventional wisdom is really a bold choice. I know there are better examples, based on actual results instead of wishful thinking.

fragmede 2y ago
Avoiding more recent (aka controversial) examples, the best search engines of the early Internet required users to trawl through pages and pages of search results, with the useful answers on page 8 or so. Conventional wisdom was this was as good as it was gonna get, and that's just how search is. That was, of course, until Google came around and totally changed the game.

plorkyeran 2y ago

Your example of a time where ignoring the "experts" was a good thing was a time when the experts were correct?

9rx 2y ago
Do you have a better example to set the context up to ask whether blood testing at that scale could ever become possible if enough people kept trying to crack that nut, contrary to the general consensus of infeasibility?
- andrewflnr 2y ago
  Why would you insist on framing a general discussion of the wisdom of defying conventional wisdom in terms of blood tests? Blood tests only come up in this context because of the one time someone lied about them.
  - 9rx 2y ago
    You wouldn't. It has little to do with the general discussion. It was quite clearly posted as an aside. It came up because the previous commenter was on a train of thought where the general topic lead him to think about Theranos, which lead him to think about blood testing in general and thus questions about that arose. That is how discussions occur. If that slide into a new topic doesn't interest you, you don't need to reply.
    - andrewflnr 2y ago
      Speaking of "don't need to reply", there are many times when I start writing a comment, realize that in fact it's wholly off topic, and delete it. Not every "train of thought" needs to be aired out.
      - 9rx 2y ago
        No train of thought ever needs to be aired out. But at the same time, if you don't see that your questions are asked, how are you to ever know? Surely we are not anti-education types around here? You are right that if you find yourself staring to make off-topic statements, like some of the earlier comments with their authors wanting to arbitrarily assert that they don't know how to read, it is time to go outside instead.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  Why would you need a better example? It's a very, very stupid question; asking it is not worthwhile. This is the problem the experts pointed out: If your sample is so small that a substance you're looking for isn't present at all, you will fail to detect that substance, even if it was present in the pool you drew your sample from. Theranos claimed the reverse, that they could detect a substance whether it was present or not. How much thought do you want to devote to the question of whether a different approach might realize that dream?